Although “conditions” such as “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, [and] other sexual behavior disorders” are explicitly excluded from ADA protections, the court agreed with Williams’ argument that “gender dysphoria” is separate from the now-defunct category of “gender identity disorder.”
“Transgender person’s medical needs are just as deserving of treatment and protection as anyone else’s,” the opinion reads. “But nothing in the ADA, then or now, compels the conclusion that gender dysphoria constitutes a ‘gender identity disorder’ excluded from ADA protection.” The court further argued that this was especially true since untreated gender dysphoria, as defined in the DSM-5, can entail intense anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, or even suicide.
See? If we change the word then we change the thing!
untreated gender dysphoria, as defined in the DSM-5, can entail intense anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, or even suicide
Still not clear why pandering to the delusions of the mentally ill is considered treatment.
My late uncle Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic who believed, amongst other things, that the Chinese were bugging his house. Would his doctors today tell him that he was spot on and prescribe regular anti-espionage sweeps of his home as treatment?
If they are disabled, then they can use the toilets with the big doors and the hand-rails and alarms and stuff. But not the toilets with the little girls, please.
Bloodletting, eugenics, lobotomies, facilitated communication…
But this time it’s not a fad that’s going to hurt a bunch of unsuspecting people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnb-tE0QwkQ&t=151s
To some degree, the words always matter. If you reclassify gender dysphoria from being a mental illness to not being one, you no longer need to pay for the treatment.
I don’t *need* to pay for the treatment in the first place.
And it doesn’t matter how you define it – I’ll be *forced* to pay for it whether it’s called ‘treatment’ or not.
Redefining terms to change the effect of laws is nothing new; see the battle over the word “woman”…
@Agammamon
Even more paying more now
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/21/natwest-to-pay-for-hormone-treatment-for-trans-staff/
No, NatWest not paying, certainly not directors who approved. Staff, Customers and Shareholders paying for board’s virtue signalling
Next will be staff bribed to be trans, then bribed to transition to meet ‘diversity’ targets. Already happening in US
“I’m not a vet, but I know what a dog is” – Madeleine Kearns
I’m quite happy that this whole fuss over the definition of “woman” has come up, because it allows you to easily sort the wheat from the chaff, even amongst the Tories (q.v. Penny Mordant).
Watching Labour politicians wriggle and squirm over this question has been excellent sport. Their evasiveness just shows the utter ridiculousness of the entire Labour Party apparatus.
That Labour Red wall ain’t getting rebuilt any time soon.